Analogies and False Equivalence
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 окт 2018
- John Corvino explains why arguments from analogy can be tricky, especially if they suggest a false equivalence between actions that are morally quite different.
Dr. John Corvino is a speaker, writer, philosophy professor, and Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College at Wayne State University in Detroit. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
John Corvino's Better Argument series was filmed at Wayne State University by James Wright and Mayabeth Jagosz, with funding from the American Philosophical Association.
The abortion and appendix argument is a false equivalent because the appendix has an identical genetic code to the mother, but the child does not.
And the appendix doesn’t become it’s own being! 😩 Have these leftists infiltrated everything?!
my thoughts exactly
Ah yes, no better way to describe false equivalencies than to only use examples that expose personal bias.
And he actually lied about Charlottesville. He clearly does not understand or is interested in understanding what really took place there.
Agreed @@nativeeurope1299
The fact that you're perpetuating the "good people" hoax destroys your credibility. First learn, then assert.
You should to make sure you are conflating the meaning of another's words while trying to point out a false equivalence.
This is a very important point that is often the source of derailment in conflicted conversations. It is also rarely noted outside of the philosophy community. I would very much like to see you elaborate on this aspect of argument. Thank you for posting.
I would argue another aspect to consider is your opponent's conviction in an opinion that seems unnecessary to debate. To take the ethnic superiority example, if someone believes one race to be better but no one actually thinks they should have to explain why that person is wrong then the person will never be exposed to the information/opinions that make the argument seem needless and negative views will be more likely to spread.
The flat earth book being used to represent "a waste of time" was a false equivalency 😂
I'm really bad at analogies
Same, we have poor imagination lol.
So is this guy that runs this channel.
What's the name of the fallacy wherein someone promotes his own ideological biases disguised as a demonstration of analogies and false equivalence?
Going To Getugly
Dave Rubin?
Ben Shapiro?
Tell me
Saying his examples are *disguised* as demonstrations of logical fallacies implies a willing deception of some kind. Where is the rule of nature that suggests a person can't both promote their ideologies AND discuss logical fallacies at the same time? Is there even a widely understood social mores that suggests such a thing?
Since there is no precedent, implicit or otherwise, that suggests he can't do both, there is no deception in his presentation.
But if you disagree with his conclusions, you ought to address his argument, not bring his character into question.
Poor argument. All you've done is claim an unspecified fallacy, without any specific reference to the information presented in this video, based upon your own apparently opposed ideological bias. Please, do share in detail the exact reference of the fallacy made by this man, explaining how it was false, misleading, or inaccurate in any way, and provide a rational counter-argument as to what you believe to be a correction of said fallacy.
It's clear you are simply mistaking your own subjective interpretation as an objective foundation we all stand upon. Why do I make this claim? Simple: I listened to the video's content and found it to be a well-expressed and valuable lesson, specifically because he used relevant, educated examples, which is a great way of helping people better connect and relate to information.
All in all, in my subjective/biased opinion, John Corvino "killed two birds with one stone" by teaching people how to improve their ability to argue and making flawlessly valid points. We need to be having these "difficult" conversations, even if people are emotionally unsettled, and I appreciate this man's efforts to speak up, instead of staying suppressed by people who are irrationally and unreasonably afraid of conversation that they simply don't approve of being appropriate.
@@DepressionAlgorithm I wouldn't say that there is a rule that you "can't," just that this serves as a demonstration for why you shouldn't. Loss of credibility because of suspected motives for one.
@@avg8or Guess it depends by what criteria you deem something 'credible' or not. On judging motive: would we question the credibility/motives of someone who exposed the fallacies of pro-segregation arguments from the 1960s and 70s? Maybe, but it certainly feels less so, if at all. I doubt many would. We can say that now because we have the luxury of hindsight on that issue. But with or without the hindsight, I don't see it being that much different. This is just more recent and topical.
If you want to judge someone's political views, go for it, but I don't really see how it detracts from the validity or soundness of the presentation here. All political parties make gaffes and say illogical and stupid things. And none of us are guaranteed or entitled to political safe spaces when we click on RUclips videos. And as I said elsewhere, there's no *social convention* I'm aware of (I emphasize social convention because I'm making a distinction between can't and shouldn't, as you pointed out) that suggests a person can't (or shouldn't, if you prefer) use politics in an educational presentation.
And, in fact, politics can be, and *are* , frequently used in more formal education about logic. Naturally. Politics is close bedfellows with debate, and logic is the language of debate. I see nothing so sacrosanct about teaching formal logic that even suggests it should be separated from politics, or religion, or any topic which humans have been debating about since the dawn of civilization.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
I like this guy. He's cute for a mature guy. He reminds me of Guy Benson.
Trump didn't say that
The rational expressed by the man in this video is a perfect example of the types of minds or, rather, ideas we need to be directing the public perception and the complexity of our global socioeconomic system. Imagine if this man, or any person with this degree of an educated train of thought, was a highly influential member of the leading organizations of our world or the leader of an entire country. This man's speeches and conferences would be considered as free collegiate-level classes that educate the public to a higher level of understanding. Even greater, imagine if we no longer elected individual people to be the guiding minds of our world but, rather, elected ideas. Imagine what our world could accomplish if our socioeconomic organization was guided by an ever-emerging set of elected core principles that were built into the very structure of our socioeconomic system and established by ideas that were upheld to the highest standards of logic and reason, scientifically-scrutinized, systematically-critiqued, and completely void of any competitive motivations from monetary-market interest.
tl;dr .... wut?
@@1flybyguy Haha!! Although it's a bit oversimplified, this is for you: We need smarter people (like the man in this video) running our world. ;~)
@@LoveEsoteric I read and understood what you wrote. It was just my way of saying that I prefer pithy over verbose. :)
@@1flybyguy Thank you, sensei, for your wise method of teaching. ;P Since you read it, hopefully you find my original comment to be a valuable train of thought, either now or in the not too distant future. Cheers!
Bruh 🤦♂️ Trump literally singled out the violent people in the same talk where he said “good people on both sides”. Trump wasn’t referring to the bad actors! You’re a bad actor for posting this video about fallacies while using fallacies! 😂 Go watch the full Trump video if you don’t believe me.
Nope. When you are acting to assert your superiority over other demographics you are by default, not a good person. You are a weak person, an insecure person, and often someone willing to prove your "superiority" by enacting violence against those who stand for equity. Not good.
@@bethsanchezyoga55 you’re being serious? So actual violence in the pursuit of perceived equity is permissible but theoretical violence in the pursuit of maintaining one’s cultural identity isn’t?
@@awfullyawful , there is nothing theoretical about the violence of white supremacists who have fabricated their identify over several centuries, in large part, by abjectly harming non whites.
Genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, housing discrimination, land theft, bison genocide, supremacist movement murders, etc, etc, etc are hardly theoretical.
Plus, Heather Hyere's murder was real. And no Alt Right Bros were harmed in that incident.
Finally, if one's cultural identify is premised on subjugating those not like you, the culture and the people insisting on it are not "good" - they are scared and insecure, unable to share to be in lateral relationship with the world.
Human culture is vast and beautiful. Build something better than cruelty.
@@bethsanchezyoga55 Only nobody was claiming to be racially superior at Charlottesville and the fact that you believe that shows you believe all you have to do is listen to your msm and believe whatever they tell you.
Okay I lost interest when you started actually LYING about Charlottesville. If you dont understand the truth about that then why should you be trusted to understand anything else you talk about.
What a waste of my time watching your video.